W Nagel (a firm) & Anor v Pluczenik & Anor [2019] EWHC 3126 (QB) (21 November 2019)

W Nagel (a firm) & Anor v Pluczenik & Anor [2019] EWHC 3126 (QB) (21 November 2019)

CPR Part 71 permits examination of a judgment debtor even when the only outstanding part of the judgment is an unquantified costs order; the process is information-gathering, not enforcement, and the court retains discretion to regulate its use. The application and orders included costs within their scope, and the Master's exercise of discretion was proper.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3126 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: W Nagel (A Firm); Defendant/appellant: Pluczenik Diamond Company NV; Defendant/appellant: Chaim Pluczenik; Defendant/appellant: Tsvi Pluczenik
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Appeal From London Circuit Commercial Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
CPR Part 71, Costs Orders, Judgment Debtors, Oral Examination, Jurisdiction, Case Management Discretion
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments CPR Part 71 Costs Orders Judgment Debtors Oral Examination Jurisdiction Case Management Discretion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W Nagel (A Firm)

Claimant/respondent

Pluczenik Diamond Company NV

Defendant/appellant

Chaim Pluczenik

Defendant/appellant

Tsvi Pluczenik

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Appeal From London Circuit Commercial Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CPR Part 71 allows examination of a judgment debtor when only unassessed costs orders remain outstanding
  2. 2 Whether the application and orders under CPR Part 71 included costs orders within their scope
  3. 3 Whether the exercise of discretion to continue the CPR Part 71 process was proper

Ratio Decidendi

CPR Part 71 permits examination of a judgment debtor even when the only outstanding part of the judgment is an unquantified costs order; the process is information-gathering, not enforcement, and the court retains discretion to regulate its use. The application and orders included costs within their scope, and the Master's exercise of discretion was proper.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Refusal of application to vary or set aside the McCloud Order
  • Penal notices addressed to the Directors